Jan Cornelis Kamphorst

The relationship between perceived competence and earned credits in competence-based higher education

We explored how two types of study outcomes, perceived competence and earned credits, are interrelated, and influenced by self-regulation, motivation (intrinsic value and expectancy of procrastination) and deep approach to learning. The relationships between these variables were analysed in a sample of 894 first-year Dutch university students, using linear structural modelling. Results show that learning process factors play other roles in explaining perceived competence than in explaining earned credits. Perceived competence and earned credits, as two sides of the same coin in competence-based education, are only weakly related. Furthermore, this study shows that it is most likely that perceived competence affects earned credits, but a model in which earned credits affects perceived competence as possible causal relationship was also accepted, although the relationship remains weak. The practical implication of this study is that, as long as perceived competence and the number of credits are not related, competence-based higher education will not obtain optimal efficiency. For participants and researchers in higher education, it remains important to be aware that different learning goals may evoke different study behaviours in students, and the challenge for higher education is to align these goals.

Explaining Academic Success in Engineering Degree Programs: Do Female and Male Students Differ?: Explaining Academic Success in Engineering Degree Programs

Background In Dutch engineering education, female students outperform male students. Using an interactionalist framework, this study explores factors that contribute to this gender-based difference. Purpose This study aims to answer two questions: Do female and male students differ in background characteristics, engagement factors, and academic success? Are differences in the relationships among background characteristics, engagement factors, and academic success gender-specific? Design/method Data on male and female engineering undergraduate students from five Dutch universities were subjected to linear structural modeling to compare potential gender differences in the relationships among the focal variables. Two structural models were considered. Results Female students spent more time on independent study, reported more social integration, completed more credits, and were more likely to stay in engineering than were male students. Academic integration and intention to persist were important for completion of credits for both genders. Social integration was only important for men’s academic success. Females seemed to benefit less from good preparation through active learning during secondary education, and the effect of a high grade point average on math was negative for females but positive for males. Conclusions Interactionalist concepts can explain academic success, but the relationships among concepts vary by gender. Males’ intentions to persist in engineering are an outcome of engagement processes during the first year, whereas females’ intentions to persist in engineering are manifest at the start of the first year.

The effects of prior education and engagement on success in engineering studies: do women and men differ?

Background In Dutch engineering education, female students outperform male students. Using an interactionalist framework, this study explores factors that contribute to this gender-based difference. Purpose This study aims to answer two questions: Do female and male students differ in background characteristics, engagement factors, and academic success? Are differences in the relationships among background characteristics, engagement factors, and academic success gender-specific? Design/method Data on male and female engineering undergraduate students from five Dutch universities were subjected to linear structural modeling to compare potential gender differences in the relationships among the focal variables. Two structural models were considered. Results Female students spent more time on independent study, reported more social integration, completed more credits, and were more likely to stay in engineering than were male students. Academic integration and intention to persist were important for completion of credits for both genders. Social integration was only important for men’s academic success. Females seemed to benefit less from good preparation through active learning during secondary education, and the effect of a high grade point average on math was negative for females but positive for males. Conclusions Interactionalist concepts can explain academic success, but the relationships among concepts vary by gender. Males’ intentions to persist in engineering are an outcome of engagement processes during the first year, whereas females’ intentions to persist in engineering are manifest at the start of the first year.

Explaining Academic Success in Engineering Degree Programs

Background In Dutch engineering education, female students outperform male students. Using an interactionalist framework, this study explores factors that contribute to this gender-based difference. Purpose This study aims to answer two questions: Do female and male students differ in background characteristics, engagement factors, and academic success? Are differences in the relationships among background characteristics, engagement factors, and academic success gender-specific? Design/method Data on male and female engineering undergraduate students from five Dutch universities were subjected to linear structural modeling to compare potential gender differences in the relationships among the focal variables. Two structural models were considered. Results Female students spent more time on independent study, reported more social integration, completed more credits, and were more likely to stay in engineering than were male students. Academic integration and intention to persist were important for completion of credits for both genders. Social integration was only important for men’s academic success. Females seemed to benefit less from good preparation through active learning during secondary education, and the effect of a high grade point average on math was negative for females but positive for males. Conclusions Interactionalist concepts can explain academic success, but the relationships among concepts vary by gender. Males’ intentions to persist in engineering are an outcome of engagement processes during the first year, whereas females’ intentions to persist in engineering are manifest at the start of the first year.